For many, the mere mention of John Boorman’s 1974 film Zardoz, immediately calls to mind an image of a mustachioed Sean Connery clad only in thigh-high leather boots, bandoliers, and a pair of trunks that resemble diapers. Since Boorman’s previous film was the highly acclaimed horror/thriller Deliverance, this visage of Connery might make you think Boorman continued to frighten audiences; but now chose to have the horror conveyed exclusively via costume design. Not that Connery’s body is the only flesh on display in Zardoz. In fact, just writing about all the gratuitous female topless scenes in this movie makes me think my sentences are NSFW.
And yet, despite being accidentally funny, visually preposterous, borderline offensive, and a host of other cinematic crimes, Zardoz is not intentionally kitsch or cheesy. Instead, it’s trying to be a very earnest, very arty science fiction movie, which on paper might have actually been okay. Except, of course, that it wasn’t. It’s not that Zardoz is simply a bad movie. It’s just hard to believe that it even exists.
Though one has to sit through the entirety of the film to grasp this, Zardoz tells the story of Zed (Connery), a seemingly barbaric man who clashes with a group of humanoids called Eternals and ultimately changes their society forever. Zed begins the movie as an Exterminator working for an entity called Zardoz, a giant floating stone head aircraft thing which hovers down into a part of the world know as the Outlands and gives the Exterminators guns and tells them to go out and kill. You know what kind of movie you’re getting into right away when you’ve got flying stone heads saying things like “The gun is good. The penis is evil.” Actually wait. You have no idea what kind of movie you’re getting into with lines like this, because there is no example of a movie like Zardoz before or since. It’s like in its own phylum of movie type or something. Like a platypus.
Unlike a corny sci-fi film like Logan’s Run, Zardoz is not awkward or strange on accident; it is intentionally provocative and absurd. In fact, the character “Zardoz” tells the viewer at the very start that what they are watching is an abstraction of actual events and as such tone will be satirical at times. Should this give the movie a pass to be as off the-wall-batshit crazy as it wants to be? In theory, yes, but in practice it doesn’t work. And this isn’t just the fault of the diaper and the bandoliers. But, believe it or not, there’s a story here people. And it’s not half bad. What I mean is that if one were to read the novelization of Zardoz (which apparently author Gary Shteyngart has!) the plot might sound like a sort of cool SF premise. Ready? Here it is.
Basically, at some point in the future the entire world goes to hell and the rich and privileged of society seal themselves inside idealized habitats known as Vortices. Outside of each Vortex are the Outlands where all the crazy shit with the Exterminators and floating heads goes on. Meanwhile, inside a Vortex everything is supposedly great. These people now live forever and even if they wanted to, they can’t die, because they’ve erased the knowledge of how the immortality technology works. All the men in Vortex completely lack sex drives, because reproduction has totally become a thing of the past. This society of Eternals (as they’re called), also has all kinds of other screwed-up problems. For one, they have a group of people called the Apathetics who stand around literally not doing anything because they are apathetic about their immortality. (Kind of like the characters in the doldrums from The Phantom Tollbooth.) Further, there are a bunch of elderly-looking people called Renegades who simply can’t fit in with the happy-go-lucky culture of the Eternals, and as such are quarantined to a creepy old folk’s home where they are all dressed up like they are in a David Lynch movie. Into this crazy town comes Zed, who despite his outfit actually does seem more like the kind of human being the average viewer would be familiar with. Zed is horny and confused. He quickly becomes a big hit with the Eternals.
Pretty soon however, it becomes apparent that Zed is smarter than he lets on and has purposefully infiltrated the Vortex for revenge. Though it’s not explained well, Zed is a kind of super-smart super mutant who randomly taught himself to read. Everything was going pretty great for him until Zed read Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz and realized that the whole stone head Zardoz thing was just like the man behind the curtain. (Zardoz is a sort-of portmanteau of The Wizard of Oz.) This pisses off Zed and his buddies, so he plots to destroy the Eternals and the harmony of the Vortex. Whoa! You still with me?
The neat thing about Zed being a barbarian who ends up educating himself and then seeks revenge is that it’s a classic arc in the vien of of Gully Foyle from Alfred Bester’s uber-famous SF novel The Stars My Destination. This, combined with a serviceable performance from Connery, lends a glimmer of credibility to the character, despite the absurd context in which he inhabits. Equally compelling is the performance from Charlotte Rampling as Consuella, who doesn’t seem as out of place in this movie as you might think. Her chemistry with Connery actually works from the first scene onward, and even though she leads the charge to kill him, I think the audience (assuming they sit through the movie) will buy it when she suddenly admits she really likes him. By the end of the movie, Zed is seen as a sort of savoir to the Eternals because he’s figured out how they can start dying again. This makes most of them really happy. He even manages to breathe some life into the comatose Apathetics.
All in all, Zed changes, drops his whole revenge thing and turns out to be a good person who doesn’t want to kill the inhabitants of the Vortex. Even though a really nice attractive woman is asking him to shoot her, he can’t do it. Tragically though, his Exterminator cronies arrive and start killing everyone anyway, much to the Enternals joy. The movie ends in a disturbingly terrible bloodbath with only Zed and Consuella escaping.
All of these themes speak of the best kind of science fiction. But somehow, the ideas are translated into a movie in which a character says “stay close to me, inside my Aura” after making a decision to go on a killing spree because he read The Wizard of Oz when he was having a bad day. Although the good stuff is there, ultimately Zardoz doesn’t work as a movie because most of what’s going on in every scene is too silly to stand. I can’t explain why almost every image from this film is funny (although the creepiness at which sex is handled is well creepy), but regardless of the silliness, there is something sort of beautiful about the totality of the absurdity that is Zardoz.
But, I want a high-five from Zed. Big time. And that’s because despite all the pot-shots I’ve just taken at it, the movie is comprehensible and in terms of story, fairly tight. Nearly all the bizzare imagery and nutty lines of dialogue are explained and justified within this fiction universe. Further, there’s a bit of communication with zeitgeist, which lends the film some artistic credibility. Between the references to Wizard of Oz and the use of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 as the film’s theme song, the movie theoretically has a profound, operatic quality.
But the paradox here is that the final scenes of the film in which Zed and Consuella rapidly age, only to become to skeletons holding hands is both confusing and on-the-nose simultaneously. The theme of the movie is how great it is that we can all die, and yet, the movie is trying to be life-affirming with that theme. Death gives life puporse, blah blah blah. And even without the weird production value, and strange artistic choices, a story with this theme at its core, would always leave an audience with mixed feelings. Which is why Zardoz is so weird. It tried to tell a simple story in the most complex way possible, and then layered on the most baffling aesthetics of possibly any mainstream movie ever filmed.
But if you squint just a little bit, it might actually be brilliant. You don’t have to like something, or even be able to sit through it, to admit it may be good.
Trailer below:
This article first appeared in a slightly different form on Tor.com in April 2011.
Ryan Britt is the staff writer for Tor.com. He knows from experience that you should NOT screen Zardoz at your birthday party.
I saw it when it came out and hated it. Saw it again sometime last fall, and if anything, thought it was worse.
This film is guarranteed to lower your IQ by at least 30 points. Doesn’t mean it can’t be fun [like “Robot vs the Aztec Mummy”
Is it Zardoz Week yet at Tordot? I fully expect this eventuality.
I watched this movie after it was first mentioned on Tor.com. You can stream it via Netflix! Anyway, all I can say I have no idea whether it was good or not because it was just was. It’s like it’s own pocket dimension. There is nothing else like it in the universe.
Wasn’t this article put up last year? So much of the wording sounds like deja vu, and I know an article like this on Tor.com is what finally made me watch Zardoz last year.
@5 Yep, but it’s a little different. But we copped to that right at the bottom. Hey! We love Zardoz.
Zeta @5: Not quite a year. Still haven’t watched this yet, but the itch to do so is getting stronger.
I saw Zardoz and The Apple at the same Christmas party a few years ago. Both are examples of movies that tried really hard to say something, but only could have succeeded if they’d left about half the scenes on the cutting room floor. Instead, the movies are fractured nonsense that becomes hilarious in its absurdity. In my circle, we refer to Zardoz as the ludicrously overwrought ode to Sean Connery’s penis, and to The Apple as dire predictions of American Idol. Personally, I consider both movies to be proof that creators can have great ideas, but be utterly unable to convey them clearly if they’re just given free reign and no critique as part of their process.
Before you watch Zardoz for the first time, go read the rulebook for the Encounter Critical role-playing game. Seriously.
The movie makes more sense after that. Really. It does.
I saw the movie when it came out and loved it. Thought it was mind-blowing. I was also about 15 years old, and probably high.
Oh so this was the trippy movie I once saw in the middle of the night on the Sci-Fi channel. I thought it was a dream!
I kind of dig this film. There are a few wonderful images and lines, but it’s also so, so silly. “It tried to tell a simple story in the most complex way possible,” is probably the best way to discuss it. Zardoz is an experience, plain and simple, good or bad. Great article.
I will be the first to admit that my taste in cinema runs to the strange. That said, I have loved this movie since I first saw it on USA’s Night Flight. I think there’s a “go for broke” quality about it that appeals to me
This is the best quote I have ever heard about this movie:
“It’s not that Zardoz is simply a bad movie. It’s just hard to believe that it even exists.”
Brilliant.
As I commented the last time we passed this point in the time loop, the introduction which suggests that the whole thing is meant to be a satire was added after disastrous test showings, or so I seem to have read somewhere.
And yet I still have a soft spot for this film, mad and bad as it is, and wish it well.
I recall my film teacher in college telling us that ‘smart people enjoy this film.’
Great article.
In case it was glossed over (it was), this film features CHARLOTTE RAMPLING. Reason enough.
This movie is indeed a mindblowing disaster, but man oh man, Charlotte Rampling.
I think the author got most of this movie right, but missed a major point.
The controlling computer was programmed to both give everone anything they wanted, and to keepthem alive forever. The only problem is that what the majority of people wanted was death. It put the idea into Arthur Fame’s mind (the one controlling Zardoz) to breed a superhuman that could defeat the computer (I forget but I think it was called the tabernacle). In a way the tabernacle found a way to destroy iteslf to give the eternals what they wanted.
I know the movie was a flop, but I love it and have watched it several times.
I think “Zardoz” has an interesting tone and texture. Its quiet, depopulated, dreamy future seems to be very much an artifact of the early ’70s. (Think of the films of Nicholas Roeg.) And its attempt to be all symbolic-philosophical-mythic clearly places it as a post-“2001” film. Unfortunately, the symbolic-philosophical-mythic part is too goofy and (as the article says) “on the nose” to hold up. It’s a lot like other stuff from the same period: “Space: 1999” and Robert Altman’s “Quintet” come to mind. All three actually do achieve a certain kind of atmosphere and feel, but don’t have strong ideas backing them up. (I think one reason both “Star Wars” and “Alien” worked so well is that they deliberately did *not* go for Capital-S Seriousness.)
#15 a-j I think you are referring to the director’s commentary on the DVD, where he explains that he added it to help explain the movie when nobody understood it. His final comment was “It didn’t help”
I think “Zardoz” is a very clever movie. The people who don’t like it are the ones who had difficulty understanding the plot. I love Zed’s mental journey. Zed was once a faithful adherent to the religion of Zardoz but now is a nonbeliever. He was once illiterate (did I spell that correctly?) but now has total cosmic understanding. Zed was bred to have super high intelligence, and so he was able to overcome his lack of early education by educating himself.
I just ordered the novel from Amazon and I cannot wait to get it!
Philip Hawes
SAT, PSAT, ACT, and LSAT Prep Tutoring
Zardoz is the second greatest science fiction film of all time. Period. The first one is 2001 A Space Oddssey.The people that hate this movie are the people that the film predicts would exist in the future–now– The brutals. The generation that now exists. Like the idiot who wrote this review. He thinks he understands this film by posing as an intellectual writing an art piece for this blog. He’s can’t simply applaud this film and its merits without repeating all the lamebrain comments from the kool-aid drinking fanboy fanbase. Why is Logan’s Run, another excellent effort, immediately shot down as silly as compared to Zardoz by this reviewer? Do you get what I am referring to? He is simply a wannabe. At any rate, I can’t go on with my comment because I just realized that this is a monumental waste of my time. John Boorman’s Zardoz and Anderson’s Logan’s Run are very good examples of cinematic science fiction filmmaking for people with brains. Star Wars, Star Trek, X-men, and all the upcoming Marvel and DC movies are for the brutals. Zardoz, 2001, Logan’s Run, Blade Runner and now -Prometheus are made for people who can appreciate the finer side of cinema.
So, I love this movie. If you have imagination and pay attention it all makes sense.
To think I avoided watching this film for twenty five years all because of Connerys costume! I finally watched it one weekend in 2013, and absolutely loved it! But to love it, you must first learn to understand it, which is something many people dont seem to be capable of. In my opinion this is the sole reason why the film is so maligned: People just dont get it!! Zardoz, is one of the most intelligent piece of sci fi ever to have been put to the silver screen. And no, I am not one of those people who love bad movies for the sake of their awful-ness, because despite what people thing, Zardoz is not a bad movie. It is a great movie, which I will unashamedly… and whole-heartedly defend. It is a criminally under-rated film. In terms of the concepts on offer here…. to this very day, Zardoz is a whole head and shoulders obove other offerings in the genre. In that way, it is… at the very least… on par with Kubricks 2001. Every costume in Zardoz(Yes, even Connerys costume), and every character have specific reasons, as to why they look, talk, and act the way they do, in the film. This is an important point, because a lot of peope are put off, by the style of the film. However, instead of judging the film, based on how dated it SEEMS to look(I was:past tense!), just allow yourself to roll with it, and you will begin to see it all, in a new light. The concepts on offer here are dealt with in a way that is far beyond anything you will be used to in modern day science fiction. Intelligent Sci Fi, to say the very least!
The author finds it hard to believe the film “even exists”……really? What then must you feel about “Plan 9 From Outer Space” or “The Brain Eaters”?
“Zardoz”….definitely is a bizarre film but I can tell you watching it in the theater way back when it first came out was indeed an experience! I certainly did come out thinking I had seen a great film, but I have never forgotten it, as there were moments in it that were just wonderful. Definitely can think of worse ways to spend a cinematic evening….
Read the book before I saw the film, back in the 70’s. Quite an intense experience when you understand what is actually going on, BEFORE the visual experience. A very good Science Fiction story and a well done rendition of the novel.
In a world of cinematic banality, bland cliche, and routine “seen it all before” boredom, Zardoz is an original, stimulating, atmospheric and thought provoking movie. If only the movie industry today would occasionally take a few chances like this movie and spare us the safe drivel we get nowadays. Come on movie execs, live a little ! You never know it might pay dividends!
I love Zardoz (the movie that is).
As a progressive Christian minister, there is plenty in ‘Zardoz’ to appreciate. First, the classic Have/Have Not ‘social Gospel’ conflict – like contemporary theologians/philosopers are saying about Empire vs Earth Community. Second, the exceptional confrontation between Zed and the Tabernacle – as if Christ were confronting the Internet itself:”Would you destroy God?” and Zed answers, “Such vanity!” (affirming the concept of ‘God’ as beyond the mere immitation of omniscience). Third, some of the oldest icons of Christ feature him with a ponytail – like Sean Connery’s Zed.
I didn’t find it kitschy or ridiculous, maybe because I watched too many artsy films from that era. It rather makes an impression of ambitious/artsy film. It’s ok, though I find the main message and motives rather naive and bland.
I also doubt it was intended as comedy or as ironic as some people assume. Obviously some scenes were supposed to be more or less funny or grotesque, but that was the part of the story.
Decoration, costumes and art are typical for those times, they seem all right to me. Sure, nowadays we can see it’s just some British estate and a lot of foil, but it’s still bearable.
There’s one major point that the writer of this article seems to have overlooked: Zed was intentionally bred, over uncounted generations, to be a superior specimen –as were a number of his fellow “soldiers”– by an Eternal (an uncaught Renegade, the masked figure who gives Zed “The Wizard of Oz” in the library –hanging on wires to emphasize the nature of the “magic trick” that is Zardoz). And this same “behind the curtain figure”/the true “wizard,” has been guiding/tutoring Zed from a distance all along, which means he didn’t randomly pick up his reading skills) –before Zed was INTENTIONALLY angered so that he would fullfill his pre-planned destiny: Becoming (the return of) Death Incarnate, and finally allowing the Emortals their sweet release from pointless, endless existence.
Very good article and plenty of interesting and positive views, maybe and eventually ZARDOZ gets acknowledged as THE MATRIX’ grandfather (the unsuspecting protagonist who becomes the One, the kiss of his lover bringing him back to the living etc.). I believe most people find the overabundant symbolism somewhat inaccessible and/or confusing. But seriously, having the main protagonist dressed in a loincloth opposite characters with Egyptian headwear inside a pyramid is a pretty obvious allusion to Moses, isn’t it? I found RonW’s speculation (# 19) rather interesting as Zed, indeed, tells them “You’ve bred and led yourselves” which could hint an intelligent genetic design by the Tabernacle, but which then would raise the question why – during their virtual confrontation – it tried to drive Zed insane, rather than to make it easier for him to destroy it sooner. I do think the film has less flaws than generally assumed and all the pieces of information we gather throughout the story come together nicely at the end, and with no cheap deus ex machina plot solution involved! The only flaw I can really think of is why Zed – after all he had learned in the Vortex – still thought of “revenge”. The inevitable question would be “how”. To kill all the Eternals that had made life in the outlands so miserable? LOL
The creator of Zardoz may have been quite the philosopher, but the movie is, artistically speaking, a flop. The director may have had an interesting vision, but Sean Connery in orange tights, immortal hippie fascists, and a literal talking head ranting about the evil of the penis put an end to all but the most dedicated actually noticing it. A good artistic vision is different from an intriguing philosophy in that it speaks to people. 2001 did that; Star Trek did that (the horror!), Prometheus did that. Zardoz spoke to people too, but all it said was: “You are absolutely not stoned enough to appreciate this. ” Of course, the philosophy behind the film probably does not help its bizzare nature, since “the gun is good, the penis is evil” would seem to be a statement that the film-maker believes, filtered through a few grams of trippy 70s dusty weed.
@@@@@ El Capo
ZARDOZ deals with a fundamental philosophical question, i.e. is immortality a good thing? Does “innocence” equal “ignorance” (Zed finds himself somewhat between a rock and ahard place, since his abuser turns out to be his mentor, too)? Does the price for a working community / collective come too much at the expense of the individual? In contrast I’m unable to see that many philosophical questions raised by 2001, Star Trek or Prometheus – if any at all.
ZARDOZ will be re-released this April on Blu-ray disc, so everybody gets a fresh chance to re-evaluate John Boorman’s 1974 film.
Someone mentioned a teacher saying ‘this is a movie which smart people would enjoy’. So much truth in that. Now off to watch y’all some Fast and Furious.
Just stumbled upon this article looking for something that could explain to others why Zardoz is actually brilliant.
Clearly I have no use for this article, but since it completely misses the point a correction is in place before moving on in the quest articles by people who actually pay attention:
The article above misses the point severely: The cheesiness of Zardoz is quite purposeful, it is a satire over anything new age or feminist in the comtemporary time of the movie.
Failure to see the blatant and quite unmistakable (unless you are deaf and blind) irony that permeates this entire gem of a movie disqualifies the opinions stated throughout the article above.
My fav flick. Not sure if Sean owed someone a huge favor, or was desperate to get 007 off him, but it’s so bad it’s great. (Better than my second SF fav, Don Johnson in “Boy and His Dog”). – See ya at zardoz.com
It is hard for me to believe that no one realizes that Zardoz is taken from the first part of Thus spoke Zarathustra! One of my faves as well as the movie. Last man waiting etc etc. Come on! I have the feeling that the reason is that very few people have properly read it?
The movie us sooo bad (probably the worst movie ever) that there needs to be a totally new category or adjective devoted to its kind, “the worst of the worst films ever”! I’m still in shock after watching it. Oddly enough, it was similar to a gruesome car wreck in tha it was difficult to tare my eyes away from watching, or maybe I was really just staring, gobsmacked! I think I might have to stare at it again, just to make sure It really happened.
ZARDOZ is fabulous. Right up there with Solaris (Russian) & Eraserhead. But Barberella (ecch!) made more $, go figure.
Zardoz is one of my favorite sci-fi films!
I’ve always liked this film, and other films that transport you without explaining everything. And Boorman, film genius, rewards the viewer with the ONLY final scene that cannot be topped: Charlotte Rampling sitting facing the camera nude. What more could a (male) science fiction fan ask for? Brilliant film.
Wow. I have to admit I was one of those people turned away by the sight of mustachioed Sean Connery in a diaper, but I might have to check it out now.
John Boorman fan here. Like all his movies and this one fits in with the rest of them. His only bad strike was Exorcist-2 which he never should of done. Always visual, Point Blank and Hell In The Pacific I like a little better but Zardoz is right behind them.
In what other movie can the main star shoot the director? (in one scene in the movie)
Zardoz is a fantastic movie. I can understand people not liking it, and it is horrendously silly. But hear me out. As the author said, the plot is utterly serviceable and contains some very complex and thought provoking material. Where most people get caught up is the aesthetics. But if you are able to deconstruct your aesthetic values momentarily to accommodate the production values of Zardoz, it really is an incredibly bold movie.
Zed walking through the Vortex finding the Eternals meditating under sheets.
The kaleidoscopic trip from within the tabernacle.
The visually bold projections overlaid upon naked bodies when Zardoz is learning the Eternals’ history.
The insane ‘2nd level meditation’ scene where Friend is cast out.
There are so many just… completely ballsy artistic choices in this movie that actually help portray the complexities of the Vortices. The fact that the production values are low, but you should be able to look past the fact that a lot of these gambits fall short compared to the aesthetics of your average hollywood blockbuster.
I laugh at these scenes, but I also find the content within them to be incredibly beautiful and thought provoking. It’s somehow more absurd than life… which to somebody like me, is a freaking achievement, not a shortcoming.
I rather enjoyed this movie, even though it made me feel a bit exasperated – it almost, but not quite made sense. It was a lot more fun than Barbarella for example. But why the backhanded slap at Logan’s Run? That movie was equally entertaining, and less exasperating. Would it upset the moderators if I were to suggest “Why don’t you just … carousel?”
The key to this actually not-ridiculous work is hidden in plain sight in its title: zardoz is Persian for “worker in gold thread” and was the nom de guerre of the Sufi saint al-Ghazali. The whole business is a psychopompic progress akin to, z.B., the Gnostic/Mandaean Hymn of the Pearl, except not acosmic. Some of the narrative furniture and production design may fairly be declared risible, but the former may be put down to excusable imaginative excess and the latter to ’70s aesthetics in general.
Friends don’t let friends Zardoz.
One must remember that Zardoz was a product of the early 1970s, when drug use was equated to creativity and disjointed, incomprehensible plotting was considered highly artistic.
I saw the movie when it came out, and still can’t understand why, if the “penis is evil” all of Zed’s followers (and Zed, himself) still had theirs. [Rather obviously, plot necessity: had Zed emasculated himself, to eliminate that evil penis, the love story at the end would be a bit more challenging]. Alternatively, and more rationally, would it have made more sense for Zed to have been played by Charlotte Rampling? She could wear the same costume as Connery, but it would look a lot better on her.
The author of the review got a crucial aspect of the plot wrong. Zed wasn’t randomly super-smart, and he didn’t teach himself to read. Zed was carefully bred and educated by the same eternal who created the Zardoz system hundreds of years before. Zed was created by this eternal, Arthur, in order to destroy not only Zardoz but the Tabernacle itself, because Arthur had come to realize that the Tabernacle, created to be the repository of everything good from humanity, was actually evil because it was hermetically sealed from the flow of life and therefore evolution. This is a revolutionary and disturbing film about humanity and evolution, which at its essence embraces both life and death.
Zardoz is both insightful and prophetic. Important details continue to be missed here, even given the corrections made to the article.
The less you understand it, the closer you are to its characters and setting. Minds are fearful and repulsed by the raw revelation.
The movie bluntly illuminates what it truly means to be human in this universe. To accept that truth is to almost elicit madness.